About your Search

20110301
20110331
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
announcements about u.s. wars, about u.s. military interventions. some of them amounting to small wars, some amounting to very large wars. now that the united states has embarked on its latest new military intervention in libya, i would love to be able to show you the current president's oval office address on the subject, but there isn't one. president obama did make a public statement saturday afternoon that we had started that military intervention in libya, but did so from the confines of a convention center in brazil. eight years to the day that george w. bush stared unsteadily into the camera and announced the iraq invasion, president obama announced his own military intervention, but pointedly declined the opportunity to do it in a way that u.s. presidents usually do. president obama taking all sorts of criticism from the right over the past few days for not cancelling his trade visit to latin america as a result of this military action in libya. and the white house knew that criticism would come. their decision to go ahead with the trip anyway, to forego the chest thumping commander
there are people trying it. from tunisia to hosni mubarak, the great u.s. ally of three decades. to yemen, to worries about al qaeda and extremism in that area of the world. he is supposedly our ally against terrorism. even moammar gadhafi, most americans if they think of him at all think of him as a ridiculous cartoon villain. even he has recently been considered an ostensible american ally. whose planes the american military shot down in 1986. a man whose house ronald reagan shot a missile. even gadhafi was made into a supposed u.s. ally by the george call a diplomatic victory after the fiasco that was the fake weapons of mass destruction in iraq. it is hard enough to figure out how americans can best help out popular uprisings of people that want to determine their own future instead of living under a despot. that is hard enough. how do you figure it out when the despot in question is our despot. when he has enjoyed american support, american seal of approval? that's why there was this collective national stomach turning when we saw images of made in the usa tear gas cannisters thrown
and afghanistan back in 2001? "t tesgo o oitwa i rorngonhto y no. first in afghanistan, the cia worked with u.s. military forces on the ground in afghanistan. in libya, the u.s. is still ruling out ground troops. so far in libya, the u.s. is not saying we are doing that. the u.s. is not saying we are arming the rebels, but as i understand it, this presidential finding if it has happened would be the kind of instrument that president obama would use to authorize something like arming the rebels. again, i am not totally clear on what the presidential finding would mean if there is one, and since we don't know for a fact there definitely was one, it is hard to say exactly what its terms are. that's one of the things we are going to try to figure out with michael isikoff from nbc in a moment. what we know about the legality of this, presidential findings have been around for decades, presidents using them for covert operations have to notify the top democrat and republican in the house and senate, as well as top democrat and republican on the intelligence committees in both the house and the senate
covert u.s. government support for rebel leaders. >> the new york times reports small groups of operatives have been working in libya for several weeks. the unknown number of american officers according to times gathering intelligence for air strikes and making contact with rebels. now, does this mean that the cia is in libya as a pseudo military force to topple gadhafi the way the cia participated as a pseudo military force in toppling the taliban in afghanistan back in 2001? the times goes out of its way and is reporting to say no. first the afghanistan worked with military forces on the ground in afghanistan. in libya, the u.s. is still ruling out ground troops. second, in afghanistan, the cia provided weapons to the opposition forces that were there fighting the taliban. so far in libya, the u.s. is not saying we are doing that. the u.s. is not saying we are arming the rebels, but as i understand it, this presidential finding, if it has happened, would be the kind of instrument that president obama would use to authorize something like arming the rebels. again, i am not t
hurdle to make it harder for students to vote. the u.s. supreme court has affirmed that if you are living somewhere to attend college there you can vote there. but that doesn't mean republicans have to make it easy. so no student i.d.s. in new hampshire republicans are trying the same deal. >> the kids coming out of the school and basically doing what i did when i was a kid, voting as a liberal. you know, that's what kids do. they don't have life experience and they just vote their feelings. >> stupid kids. that new hampshire republican legislator there has introduced legislation that would only let college students vote in their college towns if they or their parents had previously established permanent residency there. another new hampshire bill would end election day registration, which would disproportionately impact first-time voters and young voters, who, again, are more likely to vote democratic. over in texas they're dealing with a massive $27 billion budget deficit. in order to deal with that state's disastrous budget emergency, republican governor rick perry has introduced five
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)